Talk:ARA Rivadavia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article, including the backgroung and design sections.
   2. "She was the lead ship of her class; her sister ship was Moreno." -This doesn't seem as important as the dates of the ships construction, etc. It should be moved down in the lead.
   3. Something is wrong with one of the templates in the infobox.
   4. Why didn't the ship see service in World War II? Briefly discuss the politics of Argentina's nnuetrality during the war.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "saw no active service". -Needs a ref.
   2. "virtually the end of her active career" -needs a specific page number for a ref.
   3. The further reading material should be in {{cite book}} templates.
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until a few minor issues are resolved. For the most part, the article looks very well done! -Ed!^(talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it took a few days for me to get to it (real life intervened :), but I've expanded the lead a bit, fixed the template in the infobox and the citebook templates in the further reading section (although some are a little empty at the moment). For the references, the_Ed will have to fix those, since he put them in (I think). I'll give him a poke to remind him. Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References have been added. Sorry for the great delay; I thought I had added them a few days ago! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The new references satisfy my concerns with the article, so it now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!^(talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)